E 449 

.W572 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 





D0DD]i73fiTSl 



*-^ 










.o* %££•+*< 




°o 









Ho. 




°o 









• I "» 













* 



^o 1 






THE 



METHODIST CHURCH 



AND 



SLAVERY. 



BY CHARLES K. WHIIi 



NEW YORK : 

AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, 5 BEEKMAN ST. 

BOSTON : 21 CORNHILL. 

1859. 



SfU8i>S 



fc 

s 



THE METHODIST CHURCH AKD 
SLAVERY. 



What is the relation of the Methodist Church to 
Slavery ? We shall look, for information upon this 
point, first to its • Discipline' and other official doc- 
uments, and next to the statements of its Bishops, 
ministers, elders and lay members. 

The constitution and rules, the articles and can- 
ons of the Methodist Church, are contained in a lit- 
tle volume of 24Q pages, known as « The Discipline,' 
and entitled — « The Doctrines and Discipline of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church.' The latest edition, (of 
1856,) from which we quote, is certified as correct, 
and recommended to all Methodists as needful, * next 
to the word of God,' for their instruction and gui- 
dance, by the signatures of the Bishops, as follows: 
Beverly Waugh, Matthew Simpson, 

Thomas A. Morris, Osmon C. Baker, 
Edmund S. Janes, Levi Scott. 

Edward R. Ames, 

This volume, after the « Articles of Religion,' gives 
the ' General Rules ' of the Methodist Church. In 
this chapter, following the statement that a religion 
really fixed in the soul will be shown by its fruits, and 
that those fruits must be shown — ' By doing no 



harm, by avoiding evil of every kind, especially that 
which is most generally practised, comes the fol- 
lowing specification, distinguished by italics among 
the things to be avoided : — 

' The buying and selling of men, women and chil- 
dren, with the intention to enslave them.' 

Chapter iii., of Part I. of the Discipline, treats — 
4 Of the Rights and Privileges of our Colored Mem- 
bers,' and its first specification is as follows : — 

'I. Our colored preachers and official members 
shall have all the privileges which are usual to oth- 
ers in Quarterly Conferences, where tiie usages of 

TUE COUNTRY DO NOT FORBID IT.' p. 86. 

This concession to the usages of a slaveholding 
country, in a book of religious principles and rules, 
addressed to men presumed already to be Christians, 
is somewhat remarkable ; but the closing chapter of 
Part III., expressly devoted to the subject of Slavery, 
makes still greater concessions. We quote it entire, 
as follows : — 

■ CHAPTER VII. 

OF SLAVERY. 

Quest. — What shall be done for the extirpation of 
the evil of slavery ? 

Ans. — 1 . We declare that we are as much as ever 
convinced of the great evil of slavery : therefore, no 
slaveholder shall be eligible to any official station in 
our church h< n ■after, where THE LAWS OF TnE State 
I\ WHICH HE LIVES WILL ADMIT OF EMANCIPATION, and 

permit the liberated Blave to enjoy freedom. 

2. When any travelling preacher becomes an own- 
er of a sla\e or slaves, by any means, he shall forfeit 



his ministerial character in our Church, unless he 
execute, if it be pkacticable, a legal emancipation 
of such slaves, conformably to the law of the State 
in which he lives. 

3. A31 our preachers shall prudently enforce upon 
our members the necessity of teaching THEIR 
SLAVES to read the word of God ; and to allow 
them time to attend upon the public worship of 
God on our regular days of divine service.' pp. 212, 
213. 

John Wesley declared slavery to be — Hhe sum of 
all villanies.' 

When the Bishops, his successors, in answer to 
their own question, above, declare themselves ' as 
much as ever convinced of the great evil of slavery,' 
and commence their rule upon this subject with the 
words — 'therefore, no slaveholder' — should we not 
naturally look for an absolute prohibition of the re- 
ceiving, or retaining, slaveholders in church-mem- 
bership ? 

We find it, however, assumed in the above rules, 
as a matter of course, that some of the members, and 
some of the local preachers, will be slaveholders, and 
remain such, without rebuke ; and also, that where- 
ever iniquity shall be framed into a law so atrocious 
as to forbid emancipation, there those who practise it 
shall be eligible to any official station in the Metho- 
dist Church, even though this law may have been 
made by their own votes as citizens ! 

It is well known that there was made, in 1845, a 
division of the Methodist Episcopal Church into two 
parts, Northern and Southern. The volume we are 



examining (bought at the Methodist book-store in 
Boston) says nothing whatever about this separation, 
and does not proclaim itself to be the Discipline of 
the Methodist Church North. Its provisions in favor 
of slaveholders (in spite of the rule first quoted, 
against the buying and selling of slaves) Icok as if 
designed for the Southern Church. How is this 
doubtful point to be settled ? 

The answer to this question is found only by exam- 
ining the « Boundaries of the Annual Conferences,' 
pp. 158 — 173, from which it appears that all the free 
States and Territories are embraced under its jurisdic- 
tion, and also the following slave States, either entire 
or in part : — 

Delaware, Maryland, 

Virginia, Kentucky, 

Missouri, Arkansas, 

Texas. 
The following questions then arise for our consid- 
eration : — 

1. Are these rules, now existing in the • Discipline ' 
of the Northern Methodist Church, and tolerating 
not only unjust distinctions between white and color- 
el preachers, and white and colored church -mem- 
bers, but the actual holding of slaves by church- 
members, and also by local preachers — are these obso- 
lete rules, carelessly suffered to remain in the Disci- 
pline, though disused in practice; or do preachers and 
members of the Northern Church actually use the 
shameful license thus ^iven ? 

li. In the division ol 1845, did the Northern portion 



of the Church withdraw on account of the sharehold- 
ing practised by the Southern portion ? 

3. After the division was made, did the Northern 
Church, and does it now, receive and retain slave- 
holders as church-members in its Conferences in the 
border slave States, or only such persons in those 
States as refuse to hold slaves ? 

We shall present evidence upon these points from 
the testimony of well-known, trustworthy and respon- 
sible Methodist ministers and church-members ; and 
we shall first answer the second question. 

The division of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
in 1845, though made upon a point connected with 
slavery, was neither a protest against slaveholding by 
the Northern Church, nor a separation made by that 
Church at all ; it was a secession by the Southern 
Church, because the Northern brethren, who had per- 
mitted the enlargement and the strengthening of sla- 
very at several successive periods, and in various ways, 
would not go the further length of consenting that 
the Bishops should be slaveholders ! 

The latest of the triumphs of slavery, in the Metho- 
dist Church, referred to, had been carried at the Gen- 
eral Conference of 1840 ; among these were the adop- 
tion of the two resolutions following : — 

1. A resolution offered by Rev. Dr. Ignatius A. 
Few, seconded by Dr. George Peck, and adopted by 
the Conference, 74 to 46, as follows :— 

< Resolved, That it is inexpedient and unjus-tifial 
ble for any preacher among us to permit colored per- 
sons to give testimony against white persons in any 



8 

State where they are denied that privilege in tri- 
als at law.' — Journal, vol. II, p. 60. 

2. A resolution (the conclusion of a report made 
by a Committee of nine, upon a memorial, presented 
from fifteen official members of Westmoreland Cir- 
cuit, Baltimore Conference, complaining that ordina- 
tion had been withheld from some of their local 
preachers, merely because they were slaveholders,) 
adopted by the Conference, as follows : — 

1 Resolved, by the delegates of the several x\nnu- 
al Conferences assembled, That, under the provi- 
sional exception of the general rule of the Church 
on the subject of slavery, the simple holding of 
slaves, or mere ownership of slave property, in 
States or Territories where the laws do not admit of 
emancipation, and permit the liberated slave to en- 
joy freedom, constitutes no legal barrier to the elec- 
tion or ordination of ministers to the various grades 
of office known in the ministry of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church ; and cannot, therefore, be con- 
sidered as operating any forfeiture of right in 
view of such election and ordination.' — Journal, vol. 

n., P . 171. 

Since the General Conference of 1840 had so far 
endorsed the doctrine that slaveholding should be 
no bar to the ministry, it is not strange that at their 
next session, 1844, one of the Bishops of the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Chuich, Rev. James O. Andrew, was 
found to be a slaveholder. 

The Committee on Episcopacy were directed to in- 
quire into the facts in the case of Bishop Andrew, and 
report them to the General Conference the next day. 
They did so, and presented a report, containing a 



9 



statement drawn up by Bishop Andrew himself, ad- 
mitting that he held the legal relation of slaveholder 
and claiming the right to hold it. 

The Bishops united in an Address to the Conference, 
speaking of this admitted and defended slaveholding 
as « the embarrassment of Bishop Andrew,' and ear- 
nestly recommending the postponement of further ac- 
tion in his case until the ensuing General Conference, 
four years after. The Conference, however, were not 
willing to let the matter rest thus, and finally adopted 
the following, by a vote of 110 to 68 : 

' Whereas, the Discipline of our Church forbids 
the doin g of any thing calculated to destroy our 
itinerant general superintendency ; and whereas, 
Bishop Andrew has become connected with slavery 
by marriage and otherwise, and this act having 
drawn after it circumstances which, in the estima- 
tion of the General Conference, will greatly embar- 
rass the exercise of his office as an itinerant general 
superintendent, if not in some places entirely pre- 
vent it ; therefore, 

Resolved, That it is the sense of this General 
Conference that he desist from the exercise of his 
office as long as this impediment remains.' — Jour- 
nal for 1844, pp. 65, 66. 

A full account of the proceedings of the General 
Conference in this case, with the most important offi- 
cial papers connected with it, and specimens of 
speeches made on both slides, may be found in Rev, 
Dr. James Dixon's ' Methodism in America,' pp. 424- 
462. A brief statement is made of it, too, in a recent 
pamphlet, by Rev. H. Mattison, of the Black River 
(N. Y.) Conference, entitled « The Impending Crisi ; 



10 

of 18G0 : or, the Present Connection of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church with Slavery, and her duty in re- 
gard to it.' Of the action of the General Conference 
in regard to Bishop Andrew, (expressed in the forego- 
ing preamble and resolution,) Mr. Mattison justly 
says — p. 35 — 

' No complaint is here made on moral grounds 
against episcopal slaveholding. It is solely on the 
ground that a slaveholding Bishop would not he 
well received in New England and other Northern 
States. Besides, the Bishop was left a Bishop still- 
aye, and a slaveholding Bishop, with his name in 
the Discipline and Hymn-book, and drawing his 
salary the same as other Bishops.' 

And he adds, briefly sketching the secession, and 
the grounds on which, and the party by which, it was 
made — 

' The Southern delegates, finding that a slight 
check was about to be put upon slavery, so far as. 
the episcopacy was concerned, first protested, then 
got a plan of separation adopted, and finally went 
home and seceded, taking with them most of the 
membership in the slaveholding States. In due 
time they sued the Book Agents, and pr&slavery 
judges gave them a large share of the Church pro- 
perty : and they now constitute the ' Methodist 
Episcopal Church Southland are breeding, buying, 
Belling, owning, and whipping negroes to their 
hearts' content, having stripped every thing out of 
the Discipline that would even forbid their bishops 
from going into theAfrican slave-trade.' — pp. 35, 36. 

The action referred to in the Inst clause of this 
extract was taken May 19th, 1858, by the fourth 



11 



« General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South,' held at Nashville, Tennessee, and is 

as follows : — 

Whereas, The rule in the General Rules of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, forbidding ' the 
buying and selling of men, women and children, 
with an intention to enslave them,' is ambiguous in 
its phraseology, and liable to.be construed as an- 
tagonistic to the institution of slavery, in regard ;o 
which the church has no right to meddle, except in 
enforcing the duties of masters and servants, as set 
forth in the Holy Scriptures ; and whereas, a stroi g 
desire for the expunction of said rule has been ex- 
pressed in nearly all parts of our ecclesiastical con- 
nection ; therefore, 

Resolved, 1. By the delegates of the Annual Con- 
ferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
in General Conference assembled, that the rule for- 
bidding ' the buying and selling of men, women ar.d 
children, with an intention to enslave them,' be ex- 
punged from the General Rules of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South. 

Resolved, 2. That in adopting the foregoing res- 
olution, this Conference expresses no opinion in re- 
gard to the African slave-trade, to which the rule in 
question has been ' understood' to refer. 

The vote on these resolutions stood — Ayes, 140 ; 
nays, 8 ; absentees, 3. The debates and proceedings 
of the Conference are reported in full in the Nashville 
Christian Advocate. 

Before leaving the proceedings of a Committee 
which expunged this General Rule, because it was 
' liable to be construed as antagonistic to the institution 



12 



of slavery,' with which they affirm that • the church 
has no right to meddle ' (except in the way of pro- 
tecting it) — we will give two specimens of their action 
in regard to practices which they really wished to 
oppose. 

In regard to dress, the following was adopted : 
{Christian Advocate, June 1st.) 

4 Question — Shall we insist on the rule concerning 
dress ? 

1 Answer — By all means. This is no time to give 
encouragement to superfluity of apparel. Therefore 
let each preacher in charge direct the attention of 
those committed to his care to the general rule on 
this subject, and to the Holy Scriptures on which it- 
is based ; mildly yet earnestly urging them to keep 
the same.' 

And, in regard to sundry other evils, the following : 
(lb.) 

' Ques. 2. How shall we guard against bribery, 
dancing, attending circuses and theatres. Sabbath- 
breaking, and the other evils forbidden in the general 
rules? 

' Ans. 1. Preach expressly on them, and circulate 
tracts denouncing them, whenever necessary. 

' 2. Let the leaders closely examine and exhort 
every person to put away the accursed things. 

' 3. Let the people be admonished that none who 
practise any of these evils can remain in our Church. 

' 4. In denouncing bribery, strongly advise our 
people to discountenance all treats given by candi- 
dates before or at elections, and not to be partakers, 
in any respect, of such iniquitous practice -.' 

Such are the provisions inserted in that 'Discipline' 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, from which 
the general rule on slavery is expunged. 



13 

Having seen that the division in the Methodist 
Church was made by the act of its Southern, not of 
its Northern portion — and that the Northern church 
includes under its jurisdiction seven slaveholding 
States [wholly or in part]— and that the « Discipline ' 
of the Northern Church still retains the allowance of 
slaveholding, and of unjust distinctions between its 
white and colored members — we have now to inquire, 
Are slaveholders still tolerated as members, in good 
standing, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, North ? 

In evidence upon this point, we first present a letter 
published in Zion's Herald, [Boston] in October, 1857, 
from a minister of the Providence Conference : — 

Mr. Editor : Will you allow a word of correction 
in respect to one or two sentences of an editorial 
headed ' Our South-western Border,' in the Herald 
of Sept. 16tu? I feel assured you wish to state the 
truth, and would not have made those statements if 
you had been personally acquainted with the facts 
in the case. Speaking of the objections many have 
to the appropriation of missionary money to build 
up pro-slavery churches in the Border Conferences, 
you say : 'Our Church is there decidedly an anti- 
slavery Church.' Again, ' Our Church is the great 
anti-slavery vanguard in those States.' I wish it 
were even so ; then would there be hope for our 
Church and our country. But nothing is further 
from the truth. 

Some months since, I resolved to ascertain person- 
ally the facts in the case. I travelled extensively in 
Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky and Virginia, ar.d 
the result of that thorough examination was, that I 
found no Methodists more intensely pro-slavery in 
Al abaina, Louisiana, or in any of the ' fire-eating ' 



14 

parts of the South, than I found the members of our 
mission Churches to be in the Border Conferences; 
they utterly abjure the name of abolitionists, or of 
having any sympathy with the anti-slavery move- 
ments in the free States. It matters not how many 
slaves a man owns, it is no objection to his becoming 
a member of those mission Churches. It is true, as 
you set forth in that article, that the Church South 
charge the members of our Church in the Missouri, 
Arkansas and Kentucky Conferences with belonging 
to an anti-slavery body. x\nd now, if our member- 
ship there could or would admit the truthfulness of 
the charge, and reply, ' What you think our dis- 
grace, we consider our highest glory, and are ready 
to acknowledge that we intend to labor in all proper 
ways for the freedom of the slave,' I should be in 
favor of pouring out our money like water to sustain 
them. I wish that there was some proof that they 
are the vanguard of freedom's army ; but, alas ! on 
the contrary, they most unequivocally and categori- 
cally deny the charge, that any anti-slavery blood is 
in their veins, or that any action of the General 
'Conference can be pointed out to prove that the 
Church North is aholitionized. They tell them 
truthfully, that the division of 1844 did not turn 
on the hinge of the sin of slavery, but on the minor 
and non-essential point, whether a bishop might hold 
slaves or not. They remind them of the thousands 
of slaves held without a word of rebuke by the mem- 
bership, in six of the Conferences of the Northern 
Church; that travelling preachojra even, in those 
Conferences, can have tneir houses filled up with 
slaves, have all the.avails of slave labor, if the wile's 
father, or some convenient friend holds the title 
deed. They quote to their southern calumniators, 
as perfect extinguishers, the hair-sjiun and sophisti- 
cal arguments of those who are wearing out life in 



15 

the honorable iborh (?) of showing that slavery is • 
4 constitutionally ' in the Church, and. encompassed 
and defended with brazen armor, And I am only 
sorry to say, that the pro-slavery course of the 
Church North furnishes them with abundance of 
material to silence those who accuse them of belong- 
ing; to an anti-slavery Church. 

The position of the Northern and Southern M. E» 
Churches in the disputed territory may be somewhat 
illustrated by reference to the Old and New School 
Presbyterian Churches in the South ; they are 
crowding and jostling, each trying to obtain the ad- 
vantage of the other, filling the community with 
bitterness and sectarianism, while both are there 
heartily pro-slavery. The points upon which they 
differ are so trivial, that they ought never to be 
mentioned .among Christian brethren. 

H. C. At water, 

The editor of Zion's Herald, Hev. Br. Haven, com- 
menting upon this letter of Mr. Atwater, says: — 

Now we place implicit confidence in his testimony 
based on actual observation. There never was a 
grosser mistake— to call it by no graver name— than 
that insisted upon at the last General Conference, 
and repeated earnestly since, that mercenary slave^ 
holding does not esist undisturbed in some of the 
societies connected with the M. E. Church. This 
fact is asserted by Rev. J. D. Long, and others who 
must know. It is asserted by our correspondent 
from actual observation. It is asserted, too, by a 
whole class of witnesses, consisting of ministers cf 
the M. E, Church, South, whom, of course, our 
friends on the Border will and must allow to be good 
witnesses, since they interchange pulpits with them, 
and invite them to preach at our camp-meetings,. 



16 

and to dedicate our Churches to Almighty God. 
As a specimen of their testimony, we give the fol* 
lowing from the Richmond Christian Advocate, 
italics and all : 

' Sir, is it not known to you and to me, and to many, 
many others, that in the Church in which Bishop 
Simpson and Dr. McClintoek are ministers, and from 
which they were delegates to the Wesleyan Methodist 
Church, there are thousands and thousands of slaves, 
and that these slaves are owned and worked from sun 
to sun, by the members and ministers of said Church ? 
"Will Bishop Simpson, or Dr. McClintoek, or the New 
York Express, or any one else, undertake to deny that 
there are many slaveholders and slave-workers among 
the private members, and official members, and minis- 
ters of the Northern division of the M. E. Church ? 
They will not try it. It cannot be denied.' 

And again : 

' If you never knew it before, learn it now from me, 
the preachers and people in the Northern division of the 
Methodist Episcopal ^Church hold slaves as truly as 
those in the Southern division. Now, try and re- 
member this in future.' 

Now this is only a specimen. Others assert that 
they are held for lite, and bought and sold at pleasure. 
It is literally true that wo could cover this page 
with extracts from Southern papers reiterating this 
fact, and any of the writers, if he happens to be a 
talented preacher, would he invited to aid in the 
dedication of one of the Churches in New York city 
or New Jersey, and take his seat in the pulpit by 
the side <>f Bishop Simpson. The writers, therefore, 
cannot be regarded as unworthy of credit. 

The two extracts following are from numbers of the 
Northern Independent, (the anti-slavery Methodist 



IT 

paper published at Auburn, N. Y.) published in April, 
1857 : 

RIDICULOUS DISCRIMINATION. 

As the Discipline now stands, slaveholding inthe 
ministry is the rule, non-slaveholding the exception. 
We let all preachers hold slaves if they will consent 
to be local and unordained. We will consent to or- 
dain them, and let them travel, slaveholders though 
they be, if wicked slaveholders are disposed to make 
a law forbidding emancipation. In view of these 
facts, the inquiry, ' Are any Methodist preachers 
slaveholders?' ca.nnot be answered in the negative, 
unless by some one who is personally acquainted 
with all our preachers, both local and travelling. 
Certainly there is nothing in the Discipline to pre- 
vent great numbers of ministers engaging in this 
abominable practice. Nor does the history of our 
Church, thus far, afford any ground to infer that 
preachers have not availed themselves of the absence 
of a prohibitory statute against this sin. Indeed, it 
Is a well-known fact that many of our local preach- 
ers are slaveholders. No intelligent man will pre- 
sume to deny this statement. There never has been 
any objection to local preachers holding slaves — the 
practice is as free to them as to any other members 
of the Church. 

So much, then, for the probabilities and possi- 
bilities of ministerial slaveholding amcng the Metho- 
dist preachers. But the distinction itself is a bur- 
lesque. We might just as well divide drunkenness 
into lay and clerical, prohibiting the latter, and al- 
lowing the former. What if we were to deny our 
ministry, especially our travelling and ordained 
ministers, the right to steal, and so specify it in the 
book of Discipline ! would not such a prohibition 
be justly regarded an outrage on all morality ? Cer- 



tainly a people who could thus discriminate between 
clerical and lay theft would not deserve to be con- 
sidered as violently opposed to stealing. The fact 
of" a prohibition restricted to the clergy would show 
that, in our estimation, there was no moral obliquity 
in theft, and that expediency alone determined us to 
restrict the practice to laymen or mere local preach- 
ers. Such a prohibition would be ridiculous, nay, 
monstrous, but not one whit more so than is our 
rule forbidding ' travelling preachers,' and them 
only, to hold slaves. This act of prohibition shows 
what estimate we place upon the practice ; we treat 
it as inexpedient, not as immoral. 

SLAVERY IN THE BORDER CONFERENCES. 

We were conversing, the other day, with an in- 
telligent and influential member of one of the 
1 Border Conferences,' who had no sympathy with 
our views on the subject of slavery, but who was a 
frank, open, truth-telling man ; and desirous of 
knowing the facts in the case, we asked him if slave* 
holding, breeding, buying and selling, existed among 
our membership in the Border Conferences ; he said 
it did. We asked him if such cases were made a 
matter of discipline, and he answered, No. We 
asked him further, if any of our preachers held 
slaves, and he said they did. lie said there were 
slaves held by members of the Baltimore Conference ! 
He did not know how it was in all the Border Con- 
ferences ; he only spoke of those witli which he was 
acquainted. lie stated he believed the Philadelphia 
Conference was now free from slavery. One of its 
members did hold slaves, but, upon being waited 
upon by a committee appointed by the Conference, 
and in reference to the matter, he transferred the 
ownership of them to his wife! This satisfied the 
committee and the Conference, and he went on hi» 



19 

way rejoicing ! We told ],im these things were 
denied on the floor of the List General Conference, 
by the representatives of the Border Conferences ; 
he said he was aware of the fact, but they were 
nevertheless true. For ourselves, from all we can 
learn, we have no doubt of the correctness of Dr. 
McFerrin's ' statements' in regard to the complicity 
of our Church in the great sin of slavery. Our 
official editors ought to be careful how they throw 
stones at their Southern brethren. Their glass 
houses are in imminent peril. 

The question of principle does not divide the 
Church North from the Church South, so far as its 
practice is concerned. Tt is a question of quantity 
more than of quality — a question of retail versus 
wholesale. The Church South does a wholesale 
business in human slavery; the North, a retail 
business in this abomination. On the score of con- 
sistency, the South has decidedly the advantage. It 
says slavery is a divine institution, and consequently 
takes it to its bosom The Church North says, ' it 
is the vilest thing that ever saw the sun,' and yet 
refuses to thrust it out of its communion ! We 
hope the facts will be dragged out into the light, 
that we may know the extent of our guilt as a 
Church in this matter. 

The statements of Dr. McFerrin, alluded to and 
vouched for in the last of the above extracts, are 
quoted by Rev. H. Mattison, of the Black B-iver (N. 
Y.) Conference, with remarks, as follows, p. 70 of his 
< Impending Crisis of 1860 ' : 

In December, 185G, Dr. McFerrin, editor of the 
Nashville Christian Advocate, addressed several let- 
ters to Bishop Morris [of the Northern Church] 
through the columns of his paper. In the first of 
these letters he makes the following declarations : 



20 

« You have this day many large slaveholders in your 
division of the Church. You know that in Maryland 
and Virginia, you have hundreds, yea, thousands of 
members who hold slaves; that you have ordained 
deacons and elders in the ministry of your Church 
who are slaveholders. You yourself have ordained to 
the office and work of the ministry many a slave- 
holder. Why, then, in the name of our common 
Christianity, should the Southern Church be perse- 
cuted and denounced, because she does what your 
own branch of the Church constantly practises ? Let 
us see. The Methodist Episcopal Church South has 
in her communion slaveholders. So has the Methodist 
Episcopal Church North. The Methodist Episcopal 
Church South has in the ministry ordained deacons 
and elders who are slaveholders. So has the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church North. These slaveholders in 
the South were elected to the work and office of the 
ministry by the Annual Conferences of the South. So 
were those elected by the Conferences belonging to 
the Northern division. They were ordained by the 
laying on of the hands of the bishop. Bishop "Waugh, 
Bishop Morris, and Bishop Janes, to my certain 
knowledge, have each ordained slaveholders to the 
office of deacon and elder. Where, then, is the differ- 
ence ? Perhaps the principal difference, and the only 
one worth mentioning, is that the South, occupying a 
much larger slave territory than the North, has a 
greater number of ministers and members connected 
with slavery than are found in the North ! Yet the 
principle is the same. And your late General Confer- 
ence refused to make non-slaveholding a test of mem- 
bership. True, a majority was in favor of inserting a 
rule to that effect, but not a constitutional majority ; 
so that your Discipline tolerates slaveholders in the 
ministry and membership. Where, then, in view of 
these facts, is there cause for a war upon the Southern 
Church, especially as waged by those who call them- 
selves conservative men?' 



21 



If the facts here alleged are true (and we hare 
every reason to believe they are), there is much co- 
gency in Dr. McFerrin's reasoning. « Thou that 
sayest, A man should not steal, dost thou steal ?' 
We are hardly prepared to cast the mote out of the 
eye of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, blind 
as she is, till we get the beam out of the eye of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church North. For slavery to 
cast out slavery, is too much like casting out devils 
through Beelzebub, the prince of devils. Indeed, in 
one respect the Southern Church have the advantage 
of us — they profess nothing belter than pro-slavery, 
and justify themselves by the Bible ; while we con- 
demn slaveholding ; profess ' anti-slavery ;' and yet 
have thousands of slaveholders in the Church. In 
other words, we are an ' anti-slavery ' slaveholding 
Church ! p. 70. 

"We will now give some extracts in which the rela- 
tion borne by individuals of the Northern Methodist 
church to slavery is stated by themselves, under their 
own names. 

The following advertisement is taken from the Cam- 
bridge (Maryland) Democrat, where it is made con- 
spicuous by the prefixed figures of a black male and a 
black female runaway : 

$300 REWARD.— Ran away from the sub- 
scriber, from the neighborhood of Town Point, on 
Saturday night, 24th inst., my negro man, Aaron 
Cornish, about 35 years old. He is about 5 feet 10 
inches high, black, good looking, rather pleasant 
countenance, and carries himself with a confident 
manner. He went off with his wife Daffney, a ne- 
gro woman belonging to Reuben E. Philips. I will 
give the above reward if taken out of the county, 



22 

and $200 if taken in the county ; in either case to 
be lodged in Cambridge (Md.) jail. 

Oct. 28, 1857. 'Levi D. Travers. 

It is testified by Rev. J. D. Long, Rev. J. Mayland 
McCarter, and Rev. J. S. Lame, that Mr. Travers is a 
wealthy local preacher in the Northern Methodist 
Church, on Taylor's Island, Dorchester County, Mary- 
land, within the bounds of the Philadelphia Confer- 
ence. Mr. Travers himself admits this, in a letter 
signed with his own name, dated Taylor's Inland, 
Feb. 12, 1858, and published in the Cambridge (Mary- 
land) Eagle, in which, after affirming his love for the 
Methodist Church as his spiritual mother, he declares — 

' I am a slaveholder. I hold twenty slaves (right 
or wrong) under the sanction of the Constitution of 
the United States and the laws of Maryland. I hold 
them nearly all by inheritance ; one half as the in- 
heritance of my wife ; of the other half, a portion I 
inherited from my father and son, a part were born 
of my slaves, and a part purchased. # * These 
slaves I have in my own family, and upon my lands, 
some of them acting as overseers. Now as a slave- 
holder 1 cannot conceive that as such I am rebelling 
against the righteous government of God.' 

The following advertisement (with prefixes as 
above) appeared in the same paper Nov. 24th, 1857, 
and may also be found on p. 80 of • Border Methodism 
and Border Slavery, by Rev. J. Mayland McCarter of 
the Philadelphia Annual Conference' : — 

$2,000 REWARD.— Ran away from the sub- 
scriber, on Saturday night, 24th inst., fourteen head 
of negroes, viz. : 4 men, 2 women, one boy, and 



23 

seven children. Kit is about 35 years old, 5 feet 6 o? 
7 inches high. Joe is about 30 years old, very black, 
his teeth are very white, and is about 5 feet 8 inches 
high. Henry is about 22 years old, of dark chest- 
nut color, and large front teeth. Joe is about 20 
years old, heavy built and black, Tom is about 16 
years old, light chestnut color. Susan is about 35 
years old, dark chestnut color, and rather stout built 
speaks rather slow, and has with her 4 children 
varying from 1 to 7 years old. Leah is about 28 
years old, about 5 feet high, dark chestnut color, 
with three children, 2 boys and 1 girl, from 1 to 8 
years old. I will give $1,000 if taken in the coun- 
ty, $1500 if taken out of the county and in the State, 
and $2000 if taken out of the State ; in either case 
to be lodged in Cambridge jail, so that I can get 
them again ; or I will give a fair proportion of the 
above reward if any part are secured. 

Samuel Pattison, 

Oct. 26th, 1857. Near Cambridge, Md. 

P. S. — Since writing the above, I have discovered 
that my negro woman Sarah Jane, 25 years old? 
stout built, and chestnut color, has also run off. 

S. P. 

Of this person (whose residence is within the bounds 
of the Philadelphia Conference) and of his advertise- 
ment, Rev. J. D. Long says, in Zion's Herald — 

If the church regarded slaveholding as sinful in 
the same sense that she regards drunkenness as sin- 
ful, hundreds of our members would immediately let 
the oppressed go free. But alas I for us, the church 
for thirty years in Maryland has lost her conscience 
and testimony against slavery. I have listened time 
and again to instructions to young preachers, given 
at or before ordination by our venerable bishops, but 



24 



never heard one insinuate that it was a preacher's 
duty to instruct masters to liberate their slaves. 
Dead and profound silence has been practised with 
regard to slavery. Hence our members have grown 
up under the impression that men and women, made 
of the same blood as themselves, are their property 
in the same sense that a horse or a cow is. Hence 
advertisements like the above frequently appear in 
the county papers, signed by members of the M. E. 
Church. Mr. Pattison is a member of high standing 
in the M. E. Church in Dorchester County, Md. I 
know Mr. Pattison personally, and I have no doubt 
that he feeds and clothes his slaves as well as any 
other slaveholder in or out of the church. 

Wo have now a yet more disgraceful demonstration 
to present ; where the ministers of a Northern Confer- 
ence declare themselves ' as much as ever convinced 
of the great evil of slavery," and j-et, in the same 
document, show themselves favorable to slavery and 
adverse to abolition, and seek to have this made the 
permanent policy of the Methodist Church. We 
quote from Rev. H. Mattison's ' Impending Crisis of 
18G0,' pp. 36-7: 

On the 7th of April, 1847, the Philadelphia Con- 
crcnee, then in session at Wilmington, Delaware, 
addressed a special Pastoral Address to the slavehold- 
ers of Northampton and Accomac counties, Virginia, 
disclaiming all anti-slavery tendencies ; professing 
to be as pro-slavery as the Southern Church ; point- 
ing to their antecedents in proof of their conserva- 
tism; and entreating thorn to remain quietly with 
the Northern portion pi the Church. This addi 
is entitled l Pastoral Address of the Philadelphia 
Annual Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 



25 

Church, to the Societies under its care within the 
bounds of the Northampton and Accomac Circuits, 
dated April 7, 1847.' 

In this remarkable Address we find the following 
very explicit passages : 

• We learn that the simple cause of the unhappy 
excitement among you is, that some suspect us, or 
affect to suspect us, of being abolitionists. Yet no 
particular act of the Conference, or any particular 
member thereof, is adduced as the ground of the er- 
roneous and injurious suspicion. We would ask you, 
brethren, whether the conduct of our ministry among 
you for sixty years past ought not to be sufficient to 
protect us from this charge — whether the question we 
have been accustomed, for a few years past, to put to 
candidates for admission among us, namely, Are yovs 
an abolitionist? and without each one answered in the 
negative he was not received, ought not to protect us 
from the charge — whether the action of the last Con- 
ference on this particular matter, ought, not to satisfy 
any fair and candid mind that we are not, and do not 
desire to be abolitionists? The views and purposes 
of the last Conference to which we refer, were ex- 
pressed in the words below, which we must believe 
have not been generally read in your community, or 
the apprehensions which have been so earnestly ex- 
pressed would never have been entertained. The 
words of the Conference are : 

" The committee, to whom wa3 referred a certain 
preamble and resolution on the subject of slavery and 
abolition, recommend the following report: 

That we, the members of the Philadelphia Annual 
Conference, are as much as ever convinced of the 
great evil of slavery ; but at the same time we know 
our calling too welfto interfere with matters not pro- 
perly belonging to the Christian ministry. We stand, 
in relation to slavery and abolition, where we have 
always stood, and where we expect to stand, « walking 
by the same rule and minding the same things ;' and 



26 

ask that our action in the past may be taken as an in- 
dex to our action in the future ; therefore, 

" 1. Resolved, That we will abide by the Discipline 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church as it is ; and will 
resist every attempt to alter it in reference to slavery, 
so as to change the terms of membership. 

" 2. Resolved, That we sincerely deprecate all agi- 
tation of the exciting subjects which have unhappily 
divided the Church ; and, impressed with the vital 
importance, especially for these times, of the apostolic 
injunction, 'Be at peace among yourselves,' we will, 
as far as lies in our power, « follow peace with all men, 
and holiness, without which no man shall see the 
Lord.' 

" Upon presenting this paper to you, in which we say, 
* We stand, in relation to slavery and abolition, where 
we have always stood,' it is proper that we should 
remind you of the fact, that the provisions in the Dis- 
cipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church North, and 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, with re- 
spect to slavery, are precisely the same, even to the 
very words. We cannot, therefore, see how we can 
be regarded as abolitionists, without the ministers of 
the Methodist 'Episcopal Church South being consid- 
ered in the same light,' &c. 

" Wishing you all heavenly benediction, we are, 
dear brethren, yours in Christ, 

J. P. Dubbin, ") 

J. Kennady, 

Ignatius T. Cooper, y Committee."* 

Wm. H. Guilder, 

Joseph Castle, J 

Wilmington, Del., April 7, 1847. 
This Address, written but a few years after the 
Southern secession, shows how far slavery had gone 
in corrupting even those who had no pecuniary in- 
terest in it. 

* History of the Great Secession, by Dr. Elliut, p. 1083, Docu* 
incut 72. 



27 

When the fact of slaveholding allowed in the 
Methodist church can no longer be denied, its apolo- 
gists resort to the hypothesis of • good treatment.' 
When the particulars of this claim of good treatment 
are inquired into, it will be found even to pretend to 
include very little more than good treatment for 
horses ; namely, sufficient food, clothing and shelter, 
and not to be whipped ' unless they deserve it.' Let 
us look away, for a moment, from the monstrousness 
of the pretence that a man can be well treated while 
he is compelled to remain under the supreme control 
of another man, and let us read the testimony of a 
Methodist minister as to the sort of food, clothing and 
shelter ordinarily provided by Methodist slaveholders 
for Methodist slaves : — 

December 23, 1857 ._ 

Mr. Editor : My last communication closed with 
the announcement of my arrival on my southern 
circuit. Having heard much discussion on the sub- 
ject of slavery, and having heard the conservatives 
magnify the Christian conduct of the master, and 
the generally happy condition of the slaves, I am 
frank to confess that my mind was favorably im- 
pressed with regard to the institution, and I de- 
signed to apologize for, if not to defend, the sys- 
tem . 

My host being leader of the colored class, I took 
pleasure in occasionally accompanying him and lead- 
ing the class, and we frequently had uproarious 
times. In addressing these sable sons and daughters 
of the Most High ,T termed them brothers and sisters ; 
but the good brother told me he did not apply these 
filial and fraternal terms to the members of his col" 
ored class; he did not think it proper! Said [» 
' What do you call them, brother ? ' ' Well, I ca// 



28 

them aunts, uncles, 'Tom, Dick, or Harry !' — re- 
minding me of the words of Clement the IVth, who 
having ascended the papal chair, returned the bow 
of the congratulating ambassadors and others. When 
the master of ceremonies told his Holiness that he 
should not have returned their salute, ' Oh ! I beg 
your pardon,' said he, ' I have not been Pope long 
enough to forget good manners.' 

But, Mr. Editor, it came to pass, in the travel of 
time, that your humble correspondent and his fam- 
ily moved to the parsonage, provided" by the munifi- 
cence of the circuit. It was a large country house, 
situated in the centre of an extensive farm, the plan- 
tation being tilled by slaves. A part of them were 
owned by a steward of the circuit. The colored 
people occupied that nondescript apartment, the 
quarter, or kitchen, attached to the house; they 
were allowanced, as it is technically termed here, that 
is, lived by the steelyards ; with the abuse of abund- 
ance they could not be charged. 

Their magnificent, may I not say princely enter- 
tainment, for a fortnight, consisted of one peck un- 
sifted corn meal, ten pounds of pork, or rather ran- 
cid bacon, and one quart of molasses. Often have I 
seen those negroes, property, too, of that wealthy 
Methodist, work in the sultry sun till 12 o'clock at 
noon, and then come to the kitchen to mix and cook 
their chicken feed for dinner, and on bended knees 
from my wife would beg a little salt. Their bed- 
chamber was a strange scene of dirt, confusion and 
solitude ; black with the smoke of burnt pine knots, 
strewn with rags and the plucked feathers of stolen 
chickens. The bed consisted of a few rotten rags 
spread on a soft plank, and a few more tatters for 
covering ; but, as these people seldom remove their 
clothing when they retire, they have not so great a 
demand for counterpanes. 



• 29 

I drew some comfort from the thought that these 
cases were extreme, and seldom paralleled ; but a 
pious and very wealthy member of one of the churches 
on the circuit gave me a special invitation to return 
from church with him, as he wished to converse 
with me. As we entered his house, he informed me 
that one of his colored girls had gone to church, got 
' shouting happy,' and had returned in a trance ; 
or at least, her powers of locomotion seemed de- 
stroyed, and she had not done any work for two 
days. He wished me to see her, and pass an opinion 
on her case. I accompanied him to the kitchen loft, 
and there my unsophisticated eye saw the same kind 
of entertainment that I had witnessed before. Since 
then, I have learned to wonder at nothing of this 
sort. 

This is a portion of one of a series of letters signed 
< Junius,' published in Zion's Herald, and written by 
Rev. J. S. Lame, of the Philadelphia Annual Confer- 
ence, who was afterwards driven, by a variety of per- 
secutions, from the Southern circuit to which he had 
been appointed, on account of the exposures made in 
these letters of the customary treatment of slaves 
among Methodists. These ' Junius letters,' with an 
account of the circumstances preceding and following 
their publication, have been reprinted, by the author, 
in a pamphlet entitled ' Maryland. Slavery and Mary- 
land Chivalry.' 

We have taken no account, in this article, of the 
small bodies of Methodists who have, at various times, 
seceded from the Methodist Episcopal Church in this 
country, but have designed to speak only of the two 
great Northern and Southern bodies which form the 
bulk of American Methodism, and mainly of the 



30 



former. The latest estimate of the membership of 
each (carefully compiled by the editor of The Wesley- 
an, -who states his own connection of Wesleyan 
Methodists, a body entirely free from complicity 
with slavery, as amounting to 21.565,) is as follows, 
including travelling and local preachers: — 

Methodist Episcopal Church, North, 970,587. 
" » " South, 707,555. 

What is to be said, by way of summary, of the re- 
lation of these two immense bodies to the sin of slave- 
holding ? 

The « Discipline ' of the Southern Church does not 
forbid it ; the preachers and members of that body 
are united in defending, perpetuating and extending 
it. 

The 'Discipline' of the Northern Church forbids 
it only to travelling preachers, and to them only un- 
der certain circumstances ; it allows its members to 
hold slaves, wherever the laws and customs of an un- 
rogenerate community are corrupt enough to allow 
it ; and a large number, both of members and local 
preachers, use the permission thus given, and live and 
die slaveholders without obstruction from American 
Methodism. 

There are men in the Northern Methodist Episco- 
pal Church who utter a strong and constant testimony 
against slavery ; who really and heartily labor to op- 
pose and destroy it, though their testimony is cum- 
bered, and, to a great extent, counteracted and nulli- 
fied, by the blunder of practically recognizing the de- 
fenders of slavery as Christians. Even these men, 



31 

however, we suppose to be far outnumbered by the 
actual slaveholders connected with the Northern 
Methodist Church. This is our opinion, which may 
or may not be correct. What is certain is, that while 
the Northern Church admits slaveholders to its mem- 
bership, its difference from the Southern Church will 
be one of degree only, and not of kind ; only the dif- 
ference between retail and wholesale. And this also 
is certain, that however the number of slaveholders 
in the Northern Methodist Church may hereafter be 
diminished, and however her number of abolitionists 
may be increased, while her discipline retains the 
hameful allowance of slaveholding, r in chapter vii. 
of part III,) and while it contains the no less shame- 
ful concession that the < colored preachers and offi- 
cial members ' may be stigmatized as an inferior caste 
in those Quarterly Conferences where 'the usages 
of the country ' so stigmatize them in social life, (in 
chapter viii. of part I,) she may and must be ranked 
as A PRO -SLAVERY CHURCH.— c. k. w. 

Note. The timely and valuable pamphlets above 
referred to are published as follows : — 

Rev. "Mr. Mattison's — 'The Impending Crisis of 
I860,'— by Mason Brothers, 46 Walker street, New 
York. Price 25 cents. 

Rev. Mr. McCarter's — ' Border Methodism and 
Border Slavery.' Price 20 cents— and 

Rev. Mr. Lame's — ' Maryland Slavery and Mary- 
land Chivalry,' — Price 20 cents — by Collins, Printer, 
705 Lodge Alley, Philadelphia. 

Some of these may also be obtained at some Meth- 
odist Bookstores, and all of them from the publisher 
of The Wesley an, Syracuse, N. Y. — c. k. w. 



54 W 



« 






c°V 




*<fe 






.- 
4 








o • i 











r/) 













o • * 






°o 









0„ 



v i * 








.*<?* 






4* ♦VWV* <^ a* .' 




* .* 










